From P.O.V.  a regular supply of irregular humanity

Originally published in Current, Dec. 12, 1991

By Steve Behrens

Summer TV means reruns, baseball and, on public television, the arrival of P.O.V.,"
wrote Detroit Free Press critic Marc Gunther. For two warm months a year, Executive
Producer Marc Weiss, Executive Director David Davis and their colleagues at P.O.V.
and producers like Marlon Riggs have made a regular thing out of idiosyncrasy.

They've opened a window into the nonstandard lives of survivalists, pet cemetery
mourners, organic farmers, a biting terrier at risk of expunction, Cajun musicians,
romance novelists, game show contestants, transsexuals, a street drummer in Harlem and
believers in eternal life through freezing.

But the series, now moving toward its fifth season, is more than a cavalcade
of quirkiness. It has transfixed viewers with amazing films like Christine
Choy and Renee Tajima's investigation of a baseball bat murder, "Who
Killed Vincent Chin?," which aired in 1989; the cinema verite
ride-along with Bible peddlers, "Salesman," by Albert and David
Maysles and Charlotte Zwerin, which ran in 1990; and an introduction to
life-with-HIV--"Absolutely Positive," by Peter Adair and Janet
Cole, which premiered in June [1991].

Difficult stuff to get

But Riggs' Tongues Untied may remain the ultimate P.O.V. offering,
because of the fuss it stirred this summer, the subject's distance from the mainstream,
and the filmmaker's closeness to the subject.

"P.O.V. is a precious resource for public television because it provides
documentaries that are not just about but by people with different perspectives,"
says Pat Aufderheide, who teaches communications at American University, Washington, D.C.
"That is terribly difficult stuff to get. It's not just that mainstream TV is not
doing it. Few people are making it, and few are making it well."

"By its nature, P.O.V. is saying, 'This is the point in your television
viewing when you're likely to see something different," says Aufderheide.

The concept seems to have been wholeheartedly adopted by many PTV programmers. Seven
years ago, Weiss asked Frontline's David Fanning how such a series might get
started; four summers ago, a group of stations that oversee David Davis's American
Playhouse consortium brought the first season to air. Now stations reaching almost 90
percent of the population carry the series.

Weiss brought in his editorial committee last week to advise him on selection
of films for the fifth season. He's aiming for a $1.35 million budget next
season, if he can match a recent MacArthur Foundation grant. The National
Endowment for the Arts came through with its fifth grant to P.O.V.
for next season  $250,000  and MacArthur is putting up $1.65
million over three years.

"My point of view on P.O.V. is, the more the better," says James
Steinbach, programming and production chief at Wisconsin PTV. "I believe the system
wants challenging point-of-view programs."

Steinbach acknowledges that individual stations will have to decide which programs are
suitable in their markets, but he doesn't buy the objection that risky films in the P.O.V.
series put programmers "in a bad position."

"We're here to be put in any number of bad positions," he says.

Good thing, too, for there are also some viewers unafraid to have their ideas
challenged, though Los Angeles Times TV critic Howard Rosenberg estimates that they
are a distinct minority in TV land.

"It's great to be pissed off," says Rosenberg. "Television should make
people mad sometimes and not feed the preconceived notions about the world. That's why P.O.V.
is wonderful. You don't find it anywhere else that I know of."

A few P.O.V. programs avoid taking sides, like Julie Gustafson's treatment of
the abortion issue in this season's "Casting the First Stone," which the National
Catholic Reporter found to be "about as evenhanded as you can get."

On the far side of adamant

More often, however, the issue-oriented films are on the far side of adamant. The
season before last, Nina Rosenblum's "Through the Wire" alleged that women held
in isolation cells at the Lexington, Ky., federal prison are political prisoners.

If there's a common characteristic of many P.O.V. offerings, it's their tendency
to challenge the ruling ideology. "The criticism by some people that it has a
leftward tilt is accurate," says Rosenberg. "If you had to measure it on a
political scale [of one to 10], it would be an eight."

Few of the P.O.V. offerings have looked at the world from the right wing, Weiss
says, because few such films have been submitted to funders, or to the series, which
largely acquires rights to air completed films.

Aside from political slant, however, generalization is difficult. The series is
"uneven" and it ought to be, as Aufderheide observes.

This season's Stop the Church, for instance, was widely criticized for various
flaws and still defended for the virtue of its intense feeling. In a discussion about the
film on KCET, Los Angeles, Van Gordon Sauter, a former CBS News president, called the film
a "trite, unimaginative, doctrinaire piece of cinema verite of a tantrum."

The film was "not that lousy," replied Tracy Westen, a communications
professor at the University of Southern California, but he thought Sauter was missing the
point.

"I think people are tired of slick, balanced presentations that end up
homogenizing all issues," said Westen. "The power of this is that it is a
legitimate cry of protest by the people involved."

Though the film might not change people's minds, it "increases the level of
intensity" of the issues, Westen figured.

Unadulterated viewpoint

In the case of Tongues Untied, some pubcasters knocked it because Riggs didn't
hold back his anger in an attempt to win over the sympathies of mainstream viewers.

"My idea was not to create a work that would be diluted to cater to people's
comfort zones," says Riggs.

Riggs says he continues to hear from a wide assortment of viewers, gay and straight,
who were touched by the all-out expression of a black gay man's P.O.V.

"I ran into an old, old friend, and he said, 'I saw your movie, on
television  I could not believe it was on television,'" Riggs
recalls. "It was this utter childlike delight at seeming something
that spoke to him and reflected his reality."

Web page created April 19, 1997
Current
The newspaper about public television and radio
in the United States
A service of Current Publishing Committee, Takoma Park, Md.
E-mail: webcurrent.org
301-270-7240
Copyright 1997